5.  The applicant, Mr Nikolay Anatolyevich Vitruk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Kiev.
6.  On 8 May 1999 the Kyiv Vatutinsky District Prosecutor Office instituted proceedings into the murder of Mr S.
7.  On 10 May 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and two other individuals – Mr Suptel[1] and Mr N.
8.  On 13 May 1999 the police apprehended the applicant. According to the applicant, the police officers severely beat him for several hours, forcing him to confess to the murder.
9.  On 14 May 1999 a medical expert examined the applicant and established that he had four scratches on his finger and a black eye. The expert noted that the applicant could have injured his finger with the knife used to stab the victim Mr S. Later, at the court hearing, the applicant claimed that he had injured his finger while moving furniture.
10.  On 16 May 1999 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor ordered the applicant's detention on the grounds that he was suspected of a serious crime and that there was a danger that he could abscond and interfere with the course of justice.
11.  On 24 May 1999 the applicant was questioned in the presence of a lawyer and claimed his innocence. The same day he was officially charged with murder.
12.  On 23 June 1999 the applicant sent a complaint to the Kyiv Vatutinsky District Prosecutor's Office (the VDPO) alleging ill-treatment by the police on 13 May 1999.
13.  On 9 July and 7 September 1999 the military prosecutor of the Central Region extended the applicant's pre-trial detention to four and six months respectively.
14.  On 22 September 1999 the applicant complained again to the VDPO with respect of his alleged ill-treatment on 13 May 1999.
15.  On 29 October 1999 the VDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. It was established that the applicant had a black eye which had been inflicted by the police at the moment of arrest because of the applicant's resistance. The only other injuries found were the scratches on one of the applicant's fingers which had occurred prior to the date of his arrest. The decision referred also to the fact that the applicant's father who was himself a police officer had seen his son during the questioning and the applicant had made no complaints to him about any ill-treatment. On the same day a copy of this decision was sent to the applicant. It does not appear from the case-file materials or the applicant's submissions that he appealed against this refusal to the court.
16.  On 5 November 1999 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case file.
17.  On 23 November 1999 the Vatutinsky District Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the detention order having found that it had been issued in accordance with the law.
18.  On 19 April 2000 the defendants finished examining the case-file materials.
19.  On 24 April 2000 the criminal case was referred to the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (the Kyiv Court).
20.  On 10 May 2000 the Kyiv Court held the committal hearing and decided to maintain the applicant's detention.
21.  On 5 October 2000 the Kyiv Court refused to change the preventive measure (detention) in respect of the applicant.
22.  On 31 October 2000 the Kyiv Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment. The court considered the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment and found them unsubstantiated on the ground that his account of the events did not correspond to the findings of the forensic medical examination of 14 March 1999. The medical expert confirmed at the court hearings that he had thoroughly examined the applicant and found no injuries other than those indicated in his report (see paragraph 9 above).
23.  On 17 May 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decision of the city court and remitted the case for further investigation. It maintained the applicant's detention without indicating any grounds.
24.  On 25 June 2001 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor ordered the applicant's detention for one month – up to 25 July 2001.
25.  On 24 July 2001 the prosecutor issued a new decision extending the applicant's detention for one month – until 25 August 2001. This decision was cancelled by the Kyiv Prosecutor's Office on 6 August 2001 for being unlawful.
26.  On 8 August 2001 the prosecutor requested the Kyiv Court to extend the applicant's detention for up to nine months.
27.  On 20 August 2001 the Kyiv Court extended the applicant's detention for up to nine months (25 September 2001) on the ground that he had committed a serious crime and there was a danger that he could abscond or interfere with the investigation.
28.  The applicant examined the case-file materials between 18 September and 13 December 2001 and between 7 February and 13 February 2002.
29.  On 21 February 2002 the investigation was completed and the case referred to the Kyiv Court.
30.  On 26 March 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv rejected the applicant's complaint against SIZO no. 13 for failure to release him after the expiry of the nine-month period of pre-trial detention ordered by the court. On 4 July 2002 the Kyiv Court quashed the decision of 26 March 2002 and terminated the proceedings on the ground that the disputed actions had to be considered under the criminal, rather than the civil, procedure. On 24 December 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Kyiv Court.
31.  On 10 April 2002 the Kyiv Court held the committal hearing and decided to remit the criminal case for further investigation. It also maintained the applicant's detention on the ground that he was accused of a serious crime and the possibility that he might attempt to escape or interfere with the course of justice could not be ruled out.
32.  On 13 June 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 10 April 2002. It also noted that the decision on the applicant's detention was lawful and well-reasoned.
33.  On 2 July 2002 the VDPO received the criminal case file.
34.  On 15 July 2002 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor extended the period of the investigation for one month. It was also indicated in this decision that the period of detention for the accused should not exceed two months and should be calculated from the date when the criminal case arrived at the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor also noted that it was impossible to change the preventive measure (detention) in respect of the applicant and the other accused since they had committed a serious crime and if released could reoffend or abscond.
35.  On 16 August 2002 the additional investigation was completed.
36.  From September 2002 to 4 October 2002 the applicant examined the case-file materials.
37.  On 1 November 2002 the case was submitted to the Kyiv Court.
38.  On 16 December 2002 the Kyiv Court held a committal hearing. It maintained the applicant's detention because of the seriousness of the accusations against him.
39.  On 25 March, 10 April 2003, 26 June and 21 October 2003, the Kyiv Court rejected the applicant's requests for release because of the seriousness of the accusations against the applicant and the lack of grounds for changing the preventive measure.
40.  On 6 November 2003 the Kyiv Court remitted the case for further investigation. It maintained the applicant's detention on the grounds of the seriousness of the accusations against the applicant and the risk of his absconding and interfering with the investigation.
41.  On 15 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine remitted the case for further investigation. It maintained the applicant's detention stating that given the seriousness of accusation against him there were no grounds for changing the preventive measure.
42.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant was released by the prosecutor under an obligation not to abscond. The decision noted that it was no longer necessary to hold the applicant in custody and there were no grounds to believe that he might abscond or influence further investigation.
43.  On 11 October 2006 the criminal proceedings were terminated. The applicant's obligation not to abscond was lifted. Later the same month the criminal proceedings were renewed.
44.  On 28 December 2006 the criminal proceedings were terminated.
45.  On 13 August 2007 the General Prosecutor's Office quashed the decision of 28 December 2006 and referred the case for further pre-trial investigation.
46.  On 27 August 2007 the pre-trial investigation was resumed.
47.  On 11 September 2007 Desnyansky District Prosecutor's Office suspended the investigation because of the impossibility of establishing the whereabouts of the suspect Mr N.